EPA report arrogant, ambiguous

Saturday

Nov 24, 2012 at 3:15 AM

Newmarket has become the first of the Great Bay Coalition communities to be issued its final nitrogen discharge permit for its wastewater treatment plant. The permit requires the town to meet a more stringent limit of 3 milligrams per liter of nitrogen. In issuing the permit, the EPA rejected the coalition’s call for an 8 milligrams per liter standard that could serve as the first part of a phased-in approach, should the stricter standard prove necessary.

In conjunction with the permit, the EPA finally issued a response to the Coalition’s pleas. It is a response that includes arrogance and ambiguity.

The arrogance comes in a footnote where the EPA explains its lack of obligation to consider what the Coalition considers new information since the public comment period closed.

“Even if the comments are based on information unavailable during the public comment period, this does not render them timely. Under applicable federal regulations, EPA is only required to respond to materials submitted during the public comment period.” The authors continued: “ ... EPA rejects the supplemental comments as untimely and accordingly does not respond to them ...”

As for ambiguity, it often appears that the EPA agrees with the Coalition communities, but has judged the need for the tighter and more expensive standard.

The report outright admits that local waste water treatment facilities are the least significant aspect of the problem when compared to nonpoint sources of pollution: “As described in the State of the Estuaries Report, wastewater treatment plants contribute 31% of the total nitrogen load to the Great Bay Estuary, while nonpoint sources, including nitrogen from lawn fertilizers, septic systems, animal waste, and atmospheric deposition to land, account for 69%.”

The report also appears to raise interpretive questions about the criteria used by the state and the EPA, the latter which generated the permit.

In one section the report addresses the recent lawsuit brought by the Coalition against the N.H. Department of Environmental Services which serves as an arm of the EPA in this case: “EPA concluded that it was reasonable to consider and ultimately utilize the thresholds set out in that document (2009 Numeric Nutrient Criteria for the Great Bay Estuary) in this permit proceeding not because they constitute binding rules or interpretations, but because in EPA’s independent judgment (emphasis added) they represent protective instream thresholds that are well supported by a substantial body of technical and scientific evidence and are relevant information within the meaning of federal regulations governing the NPDES permitting process.”

For as many charts, graphs and measurements included in the report, it is clear that the EPA is making value judgments. As a result, the editorial board here at Foster’s Daily Democrats predicts this report will provide fodder for further challenges to the EPA’s demands.

What is particularly disturbing about that likelihood is that, in large part, we believe it would not have been needed had the EPA been willing to engage in an ongoing dialogue — or dare we say negotiate in good faith — with the Coalition.

In the wake of the congressional hearing held in Exeter earlier this year, it became apparent that the EPA had dug in its heels. Since that hearing, we are told EPA officials refused to have a meaningful discussion with local officials. Instead, they moved ahead with the permit and report issued last week — one which will cost Coalition communities and ratepayers dearly while, as the EPA admits, only addressing a minority of the problem.